Thursday
Sep082011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Coopting extremes
Sep 8, 2011 Climate: WG2 Nature reports on a new project to investigate links between extreme weather and global warming.
"The idea is to look every month or so into the changing odds" associated with that influence, says Peter Stott, a climate scientist with the UK Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter and a leader of the ACE group. Stott is writing a white paper laying out plans and requirements for a near-real-time attribution system, which he will present in October at the World Climate Research Programme conference in Denver, Colorado.
Dear Kev seems to be involved.
Reader Comments (195)
BBD wrote: "I agree that normalised losses show no trend to date. I suspect that is because the warming trend is only just getting going."
There has been a warming trend for the past 100+ years. How is it "only just getting going"?
BREAKING NEWS. BREAKING NEWS.
This could be very big stuff.
http://www.businessinsider.com/now-the-fbi-is-raiding-obamas-favorite-solar-company-2011-9
DaveJR
1900 - 1979 +0.3C
1979 - present +0.5C
Komment Macht Frei on another of Leo Hickman's articles again. Loads of polite posts removed without trace.
BBD wrote:
"1900 - 1979 +0.3C
1979 - present +0.5C"
Ah, I see, you want to cherry pick dates to pretend warming is only just getting started. Whatever floats your boat.
I have a post on this topic at Climate Etc.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/08/extreme-measures/
Shub- we can safely assume Dear Kev, Phil the Email Terminator and Mickey Hockey Foul have little or no policy or political skills (see COPs passim) and primitive social skills (climategate docet).
Hence there's no chance they'll catch the Zeitgeist, and the public.
DaveJR
If you think I am wrong to use the start of the satellite era as a good point to switch from reliance on surface data alone, then say why.
If you think that the GAT has not warmed by the amounts I quote, you need to provide a counter.
Absent either, you are saying nothing.
DaveJR
I should have provided some supporting evidence. How about the ten year running means for HADCRUT, GISTEMP, UAH and RSS?
If we are interested in an increase in decade-on-decade warming, it should show up clearly, shouldn't it?.
Oh, look.
My point is really quite simple BBD and you've just been nitpicking around it. The globe has been warming for the past 100+ years. You believe there are no trends in disasters because warming has only just got going. How many more years do you believe will be needed to find a trend?
Cherrypicking dates to try and pretend warming has only just got going is just silly and transparent. Indeed, if just 20 years of warming trend is enough to show that warming has only just got going, then we're already over half way there to proving it hasn't.
Richard Betts,
Honestly, I despair.
You write:
"Sadly, as some of the above posts illustrate, it is all wrapped up in one thing in some people's minds. The thinking is: climate scientist = green activist = fiddled science in order to cheat us out of our taxes. This is not the case (but I know you won't believe me!)."
But, let me ask you to do something. Imagine, for a moment, that you believe that the threat from anthro CO2 is being exaggerated. Imagine that you believe that a bunch of very well intentioned scientists are over-egging the pudding in order to try to scare the general population into going along with the idea that they need to pay much more for their energy, in order to combat climate change.
Now imagine that you read this:
"... the effects of local weather extremes tend to be instantly tangible and vividly remembered. Surveys suggest that people who feel they have personally experienced the effects of climate change are more likely to believe it is a real problem — and one that needs solving — than those who have not.
With those imperatives in mind, the ACE group has set out to explore the climate–weather connection systematically, by feeding observational data from the UK Met Office and the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, into seasonal forecasts and long-term climate models."
And:
"Ultimately, the group hopes to create an international system that could assess the changing climate's influence on weather events almost as soon as they happen or even before they hit, with results being announced on the nightly weather reports."
Now, as a sceptic, what you have just read is this:
"We will turn every weather event into an immediate CAGW scare story."
I find the whole thing utterly revolting.
To what extent will the history of "weird weather" be looked at? What kind of scientific enquiry will be made by this team into previous instances of extreme weather? It seems that the scare stories will be based on highly dodgy computer programs.
Even if I supported the consensus position, I'm not sure I'd think this was a good idea. In the UK, the snow fiasco was a big wake up call for many people. "Throw your sledges away, because these unusually warm snowless winters are the new norm, thanks to climate change." "Err... actually, we meant that very cold snowy winters are caused by climate change. We realised that, just after it happened."
You can only spout nonsense for so long, before people see what's going on and get bored.
bbd, please don't derail (or help re-rail). Everytime you start some temperature trend analysis business, that happens.
Did you read/open/peruse the Laughlin article?
DaveJR
No response to the graph linked above? Okay, here's another way of looking at it.
Let's take the warming trend from 1900 - present and compare it with the trend 1950 - present.
If the rate of warming has increased over the last century then warming from 1950 - present will trend higher than warming over the full period. Yes?
To make the trend lines more visible (and for no other reason) I have used the annual means for HADCRUT3 and GISTEMP.
HADCRUT3 and GISTEMP. Trends: 1990 - present; 1950 - present.
Obstinate refusal to treat the data objectively isn't very clever either.
Shub
Yes I did, and thanks for the link. It's good on geological climate variation, but not so clear about the present collision of energy policy and atmospheric physics. Doesn't Laughlin essentially argue that it's all big stuff on long timescales and there's nothing we can really do about it? True on long timescales, but not very pertinent to the, ahem, burning question.
This is unclear. The annual means are used to smooth the curves to make the trend lines more visible. The trends were calculated from the monthly anomalies, not the annual means.
@BBD
1900 - 1979 +0.3C
1979 - present +0.5C
I take your point that, according to those figures, temperature rise has accelerated. Let us ignore every other fact but the following.
Preceding the first of your periods we were in an LIA and whatever caused this condition to change may still be continuing and possibly accelerating.
What I really don't understand is why we can be so sure that a natural process, the nature of which we are still guessing at and therefore cannot be quantified should, by so many, be neglected when compared with anthropogenic CO2 emissions?
If anyone can explain this to me without going into other details, I would be extremely chuffed.
BBD, maybe it's just my imagination, but looking at the graph you linked to I see essentially the same trend/slope for the following periods:
1880-1920 and 1940-1980 (-0.05 degC/decade);
1915-1945 and 1965-2005 (+0.14degC/decade).
I know that you attribute the forcing behind the 1915-1945 rise mainly to the Sun and the 1965-2005 rise mainly to CO2. However, I do find it strange that the pattern seems to repeat in such a similar manner, both in duration and slope, which makes me wonder if there isn't a missing factor that could explain both?
The whole point of the laughlin article was to persuade the reader to have a sense of perspective and not blow small things out of proportion.
Apparently, that very message is grounds to dismiss his article.
Laughlin is coming out with his book. He is no skeptic/denier etc, mind you. But in your book, BBD, he is, well, useless.
"runoff" trend maps - what a joke.
RoyFOMR
Think of it like this: the radiative forcing from CO2 can be calculated. It fits well as an explanation for current warming.
The climate needs energy to warm. No other increase in energy (RF) sufficient to explain modern warming has been found.
There is no evidence that the 'recovery' from the LIA is a factor in modern warming.
So, the hypothesis is that CO2 is the cause of the increased RF which is the cause of the modern warming.
Re: Roy FOMR
"I take your point that, according to those figures, temperature rise has accelerated."
I think it was Phil Jones himself who pointed out that there is no statistically significant difference between the warming of the early 20th Century and of the late 20th Century, so not much support there for "accelerated rise". And the recent statement by the "Team" says we need 17 years for warming or a plateau for statistical significance (which is consistent with Phil Jones' comment). So where is the statistical support for all these trends?
And several people including myself have checked the temperature corrections applied to the GHCN data set (which forms part of the input for many of the data sets from which trends are derived) and discovered that about 0.25 deg C over the period 1910 to present is a systematic temperature increase created by the data corrections. Why? On what basis?
Shub
It also serves as a distraction from the boring old atmospheric physics. But as you say, Shub, we shouldn't blow little things out of proportion.
Perspective in climate change might also start one thinking about things like abrupt past climate change and climate sensitivity to radiative forcing (irrespective of source). Just 'energy in'. Little things, blown out of proportion.
@BBD
Thanks for your response but I'm still puzzled. You said
"There is no evidence that the 'recovery' from the LIA is a factor in modern warming"
I just don't understand this statement. If we don't know what caused the 'recovery' then how can we discount it as factor in modern warming?
@ThinkingScientist
Thanks for your response but I wanted to steer away from those points that always seem to create more Heat than Light on climate blogs.
For the sake of argument, I will accept BBD's figures without question but this is what I stated and asked.
"Preceding the first of your periods we were in an LIA and whatever caused this condition to change may still be continuing and possibly accelerating.
What I really don't understand is why we can be so sure that a natural process, the nature of which we are still guessing at and therefore cannot be quantified should, by so many, be neglected when compared with anthropogenic CO2 emissions?"
@RoyFOMR
I agree with you, and I think that it is a key question, not until we can explain the LIA, the MWP and the Roman Climate Optimum, we will be able to explain the current climatic trend. Any attempt to shut down that discussion (via hockey sticks or ad hoc regionalizations of the events) is not a honest approach to clarify the behaviour of the climate system.
Here you can see a chart of temperatures from the GISP2 Greenland ice core. Note that 0.0 means 95 years before 1950. Yet, it is clear that it was warmer in Roman and Viking times, an that the slope of the temperature trend was as steep if not steeper than now.
We should get rid of "we need to get rid of the MWP"
RoyFOMR:
Fair enough, and thanks for your polite response. So am I right in thinking the thrust of your argument is how we can we be sure that we are not simply in the continuing recovery from the LIA?
Conisdering the small temperature gradients currently experience, compared to periods such as the Younger Dryas, this seems an entirely reasonable question.
sorry, here is the graph
Something more from Syun Akasofu on the recovery from the LIA
@ThinkingScientist
"So am I right in thinking the thrust of your argument is how we can we be sure that we are not simply in the continuing recovery from the LIA?"
I wish I could have said it as clearly as you TS:(
Yes, spot on.
despite all the studies BBD refers to (has he read Mouse and Mickey et al (2011) ??)
I do not believe the theory that more atmospheric heat capacity in the system brings in more storms etc.
The problem with the present (or pre humanity) atmospheric heat capacitors (water molecules in the atmosphere) is that they are generated in specific areas and times (DAY, and above WATER, and likely EQUATORIAL or around).
CO2 ,however , is a heat capacitor that is generated by humans, but is fairly "quickly" (weeks) dispersed and ALL OVER.
Now, homogenising does not add to turbulence.
Ideas, suggestions ,"it's all Bush's fault" , "rape!!" ..
RoyFOMR:
For me, a simple glance at the last 10,000 or 20,000 years of the GISP2 ice core temperature estimate should be enough to convince most rational people that the tiny/modest temperature changes observed today are just trivial compared to those of the Younger Dryas or during Dansgaard/Oeschger cycles where temerature changes of +/10 degC+ are observed in just a few decades. Can you imagine the alarm/propoganda/hysteria in the present day if such a natural climate shift happened now?
Caroline
As you may already know, there is no Santa Claus, nor easy solution to global problems. However, Caroline, you got it right. Right across the board. Every goddamn point you make is right on.
However, what really, really warms my tire old heart is your statement "I only have school level science and I can see this is not right" My GOD! SOMEWHERE THEY ARE STILL TEACHING SCIENCE TO THE YOUNG!!! OH, MY GOD! We still have HOPE!.
I pray to god that your are not 70 like me, but still young. Oh, GOD, please let there be somewhere that still teaches our young about reality and not left-wing crap about "post-normal science" (aka AGW theology).
Please, oh, please tell me that you can still have children and that there is some hope.
My understanding of climate change is that if AGW is correct then the temperature increase at the poles should be greater than at the equator and therefore the difference between temperature at poles and equator should reduce.
As it is temperature difference between poles and equator that drives weather and storm energy then a natural and logical conclusion should be that in order to provide evidence in support of AGW researchers should be expecting to find a decrease in extreme weather, not an increase.
Doesn't make such good headlines though, does it? "Researchers claim global warming will make weather less extreme. World to become less exciting due to man-made global warming."
RoyFOMR
I do understand what you are saying, but there's a problem. You are trying to give an unsupported assumption the same standing as a period of scientific investigation going back decades.
It is suggested that the LIA was caused by the Maunder solar minimum. There is no evidence that the Maunder or subsequent Dalton minimum have any effect on modern climate (1900 - present, for this discussion).
In contrast, the RF from CO2 has been carefully expored in many papers over many years. A very well-supported hypothesis exists that CO2 is the probable cause of much of the recent warming (let's say post-1950 for this discussion) There are as yet no paradigm-shifing rebuttals to this hypothesis.
We can disagree about the causes, but meaningful debate requires that you substantiate your view that some sort of recovery from the LIA is real and still increating GAT.
So you need to explain why the hypothesised increase in RF from increasing levels of CO2 does not have an effect. Or at least why the effect is far less than expected.
Then you have to explain the unknown mechanism by which an ongoing recovery from the LIA [evidence required] is responsible for modern warming.
ThinkingScientist
While this "data" may or may not support whatever view you may have, it is all bullshit. They are estimates arrived at unqualified means. What I mean is supported by real data.
There are, however, a couple thousand years of data locked up in the Chinese archives which can -- if anybody bothered to do it -- be correlated with these estimates. REAL DATA! Imagine that REAL DATA!
Why are we not using it?
Perhaps it is simply more fun and profitable to "estimate" it with your PC and a questionable modeling program?
Don Pablo: says:
"As you may already know, there is no Santa Claus"
I cannot believe you said this and I am glad my children are not reading it. This is incredibly offensive and should be banned immediately by the moderators. I expect your comments to be snipped immediately.
Everyone knows there is always a sanity clause in every contract.
@ThinkingScientist
I'm not disagreeing with you but I like to take one step, or question, at a time.
Provide too much detail and discussions can soon drift.
Sorry, if I'm being an obstinate old codger:)
BBD says:
"It is suggested that the LIA was caused by the Maunder solar minimum. "
But what RayFOMR is arguing is how can you tell we are not still recovering from the LIA during the Maunder minimum. The argument is not what caused it but, considering data such as CET, how can you be sure that the current rises are not simply recovery from a temporary temperature low?
And as an afterthought, there is a lot of support that we may be heading for another solar minimum (or at least a cool period) for the next 30 - 70 years.
BBD says:
"You are trying to give an unsupported assumption the same standing as a period of scientific investigation going back decades."
So are you arguing that the LIA was not colder than the present day and that temperatures have not increased since the LIA? Furthermore, do you think that there was no decrease of temperature from the MWP to the LIA?
Unsupported argument? I don't think so. There is lots of physical and documentary data to support these arguments. They are irrefutable and not "unsupported assumption".
AusieDan
Because of evidence in the scientific literature, such as the Milly et al 2008 paper linked by BBD (thanks for that!) and also others such as Alexander et al 2006.
However, like BBD, Roger Pielke Jnr and other level-headed people, I do not think that there is evidence that weather-related disasters are on the increase (yet). The now-discredited Global Humanitarian Forum report "Anatomy of a Silent Crisis" was particularly bad (claiming 300,000 deaths per year due to climate change through weather disasters, based on a very dodgy methodology). Can't add the link because they've removed the report!
BTW change doesn't always mean an increase of course. Some climate models project a decrease in overall Atlantic hurricane activity with climate change due to increased vertical wind sheer (Lee et al 2010)
Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist with the NCAR, estimates that a few million dollars would be enough to coordinate an international service using facilities already in place at his institution, the Met Office and elsewhere.
This is a last ditch attempt to maintain funding for the future. Trenberth knows that Obama is toast due to his dodgy solar dealings and no funds will be forthcoming from the US government for future green projects.
The chances of the UKMET achieving these funds are also minimal as the MOD budget is slashed, Any Conservative Prime Minister that expects a second term will quickly lose friends if soldiers are sacked in order to fund an international science project.
Timing is everything, our elections are far enough away for this to be forgotten by then if the cuts already in the system were working, but hey aren't so there will be more cuts and doughts are already appearing in Whitehall about the affordability of wind power. If that turns tits up it will be interesting to see who gets paid compensation by the British tax payer!
Sorry to be brutal guys but the trough is definately emtying and the shouting about CO2 is going to get louder and even more stupid by those seeing the empire crumble around them until.
A good hard NH winter may be cruel but it could well be the end of AGW, certainly in the States at least.
@BBD
An excellent response from which we can all learn, thank you.
A few thoughts spring to mind.
"You are trying to give an unsupported assumption the same standing as a period of scientific investigation going back decades"
I only assumed that we'd experienced an LIA, BBD, and GAT had increased since then.Is that a faulty assumption?
"It is suggested that the LIA was caused by the Maunder solar minimum".
That is my understanding too but thought that was due to low sunspot activity rather than TSI. My understanding was that is not the view held by the IPCC.
"There is no evidence that the Maunder or subsequent Dalton minimum have any effect on modern climate (1900 - present, for this discussion)"
Again my understanding, or misunderstanding, is that the 'no evidence that it can be anything else' has been taken as the 'smoking gun' that proved AGW!
"A very well-supported hypothesis exists that CO2 is the probable cause of much of the recent warming (let's say post-1950 for this discussion)"
And for the preceding half-century, what was the probable cause?
"We can disagree about the causes, but meaningful debate requires that you substantiate your view that some sort of recovery from the LIA is real and still increating GAT"
I can't disagree with causes when I don't know what the causes were of LIA recovery or other historic changes. I certainly can't substantiate that which I asked the question of in the first place. I simply don't know BBD and that's why I'm asking the question. To do so would be an argument from ignorance. If I could get a sensible answer to my original question then I could perhaps substantiate.
I'm starting to wonder if anyone knows the answer.
"So you need to explain why the hypothesised increase in RF from increasing levels of CO2 does not have an effect. Or at least why the effect is far less than expected"
I have no fundamental issues with the RF increase at all. I know some will disagree but it seems well-argued as far as my understanding goes. The physics seems not that controversial. It's the sensitivity and feedbacks that seem to be unsettled science.
"Then you have to explain the unknown mechanism by which an ongoing recovery from the LIA [evidence required] is responsible for modern warming"
I have as much chance of explaining an unknown mechanism other than it is an unknown mechanism as Dr Trenberth has:)
I'm totally confused, however, as to your LIA [evidence required] meaning. Are you saying there was no LIA? I assume that you're not, otherwise you would have gently pointed out that my question was based upon a false premise and thus transatlantically moot.
Patagon above has some nice links.
Take care and, once againn, thanks.
Roy
Patagon
Loved your "complete list of things caused by global warming"!
However, I only checked a few links at random, and I noted that all the ones I chose were links to media reports not scientific papers.
I do get annoyed when everything seemingly gets linked to climate change!
ThinkingScientist
The abrupt cooling of the Younger Dryas was probably caused by a substantial injection of cold, fresh water into the N Atlantic. This came from the rapidly melting Laurentide ice sheet. The vast pulse seems to have occured when Lake Agassiz abruptly drained into the Arctic Ocean via what is now the Mackenzie River.
This temporarily halted global heat transport via the thermohaline conveyer. It got very cold, very quickly. It overprinted Milankovitch forcing for over a millenium.
Lord Beaverbrook
MOD funding for climate research at the Met Office was already completely cut a couple of years ago. Anyway, as of a few weeks ago, we are now part of BIS.
ThinkingScientist
No. I did not say that. I said that there is no evidence that modern climate is being affected by some sort of ongoing 'recovery' from the LIA.
If you go back to my comment with this clarification it might make more sense.
On a lighter note. Here's a piece of classic comedy from 1973 featuring the £3.5 Met office computer.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0148wfp/The_Men_from_the_Ministry_Under_the_Weather/
oops, £3.5 Million
Richard Betts
Do you expect much reference to Lee et al 2010 in AR5?
RIchard Betts
Yes, the GHF report was a bit of a disgrace, wasn't it? However, in the interests of balance, I can at least understand why Annan and others decided that it was the 'right' thing to do before COP15.
It was not a good plan.
Justice4Rinka, Caroline,
Yes indeed correlation is not causation!
Climate change attribution is not about correlation, it uses climate models as a controlled experiment with different forcings (GHGs, aerosols, solar, volcanic, land use, etc) switched on and off - obviously far from ideal since it's only models, but they are the only way of doing this in the absence of being able to do a controlled experiment on a real planet :-)